OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:01:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The proper place of God’s righteousness in Orthodoxy  (Read 2048 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« on: May 07, 2014, 01:07:09 PM »

Greetings to all, Christ is Risen!
I am an inquirer trying to understand the proper place of God’s righteousness in Orthodox thought.  As I have been drawn towards Orthodoxy, I appreciate the perspective of being rescued from Death into Life.  Unfortunately this perspective is often explained in a way that minimizes, often to non-existence, the idea that God is righteous and just in favor of a loving God who could not possibly “send” people to hell for their sins (be it a physical place or a state of mind). 

I have come to see a great paradox in my journey, a beautiful mystery between these two attributes of God: a God who is perfectly Just and at the same time perfectly Love; not in contradiction, but in harmony.  This mystery is personified in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, his passion, and his resurrection.  God remains just in condemnation of sin, but through his perfect love and sacrifice grants us the possibility of life, of theosis.

I understand there seems to be at least one underlying difference causing confusion.  That is a difference of opinion about “necessity” as it applies to God.  To my indoctrinated protestant mind it is necessary for Christ to die for the forgiveness of sins, because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  This however seems to be rejected by some modern orthodox writers.  My question is this, if one rejects the idea of necessity, where does the righteousness of God go?  How does one say nothing is necessary of God, but at the same time God is consistently righteous?

Obviously I’m missing an important piece of the puzzle because I doubt that Orthodoxy rejects righteousness as being an attribute of God. 

Thank you,
η μαθητης
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,003



« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2014, 01:10:05 PM »

I do not agree with the modern writers who does not think it was necessary.  Besides that, welcome to the forum!
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2014, 02:05:28 PM »

Quote
To my indoctrinated protestant mind it is necessary for Christ to die for the forgiveness of sins, because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  This however seems to be rejected by some modern orthodox writers.
Could you give any examples of authors who deny the necessity of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins?  That seems very strange to me. The Blood and Body of Christ are both considered essential to our salvation and are offered to the faithful at every Divine Liturgy.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the word "necessary".  It is not "necessary" in the way that God is somehow obligated, but it is "necessary" in the respect that without Christ's sacrifice, we cannot be saved.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2014, 03:12:29 PM »

How does one say nothing is necessary of God, but at the same time God is consistently righteous?
Love.
Logged

μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2014, 04:40:49 PM »

Quote
Could you give any examples of authors who deny the necessity of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins?
This is an article the commended by the local OCA priest.  I got on his email list when I recently contacted him about beginning a journey towards Orthodoxy.
http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/04/25/the-scope-of-passover-and-penal-substitution-theory/
The matter of necessity is not explicit in the article itself but comes out in the comments below as the author answers a question.  See post from Christ,  April 26, 2014 at 8:59 am, "Great post. Have a question regarding the necessity of blood sacrifice..."
The article seems to brush aside the attribute of God's righteousness and justice.

Quote
Hecma925: Love
Thank you for answering.  Can you please explain further?  If love, where does God's righteousness come into the picture?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2014, 05:08:29 PM »

Orthodoxy stresses on righteousness as a state of the soul.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2014, 09:07:44 PM »

Quote
Could you give any examples of authors who deny the necessity of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins?
This is an article the commended by the local OCA priest.  I got on his email list when I recently contacted him about beginning a journey towards Orthodoxy.
http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/04/25/the-scope-of-passover-and-penal-substitution-theory/
The matter of necessity is not explicit in the article itself but comes out in the comments below as the author answers a question.  See post from Christ,  April 26, 2014 at 8:59 am, "Great post. Have a question regarding the necessity of blood sacrifice..."
The article seems to brush aside the attribute of God's righteousness and justice.

Quote
Hecma925: Love
Thank you for answering.  Can you please explain further?  If love, where does God's righteousness come into the picture?
Perhaps it is not a case of brushing aside those attributes as much as it is a re-understanding of them.  God is righteous and just, but it is helpful to remember that analogizing sin as a crime or transgression is merely one way of explaining it.  The Orthodox Church more heavily relies on another analogy, one in which sin is a disease and the blood of Christ is the cure. If a doctor (Christ) offers a cure (His Blood) to a patient (sinner), how the patient (sinner) responds to that (repentance or pride) and the result from the patient's response (life or death) in no way affects the righteousness or justness of the doctor (Christ). The reason that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood is not that killing Jesus somehow calms the wrath of God, but rather Christ is the Bestower of Life and in His Blood is Life. He gives us this remedy freely, but we must participate with Him.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2014, 12:25:15 AM »

Quote
analogizing sin as a crime or transgression is merely one way of explaining it.
Ah, there's a difference in analogies which have evolved into different ontological realities for the respective parties.  You are calling "sin a crime (aka breaking God's law)" a mere analogy.  My protestant teachers taught this as a reality through giving examples of this in Holy Scripture (from the protestant point of view of course).  In my limited exposure thus far, Orthodoxy also presents sin in ontological language as well, "sin is a disease"  instead of "sin is like a disease".  That explains some of my confusion.

By calling this an analogy, it weakens the definition and creates the opportunity to allow another analogy to fill in the gaps.  Unfortunately anyone can create an analogy, many analogies can co-exist, and all analogies are imperfect, though some are better than others.  For this reason I consciously avoid basing what I believe on the shifting sand of analogies.  But obviously I have been doing so unconsciously.

I understand where the analogy of "sin as a crime" comes from.  Can someone give a basis for the analogy of "sin as a disease"? 

I'm also curious to know: If sin is not disobedience...
1. how should I interpret the commands of God in Scripture? If as a simple command then assuming all commands come with an implied punishment, (just ask any parent what happens when a command is issued and disobedience not punished) we are back in the protestant paradigm again.
2. what do I call humanity's disobedience to those commands?
3. what term is used to describe God's action towards humanity's disobedience (say for example Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16)?

Thank you all who have posted, and I ask for your continued patience.  I am hoping that if I keep asking questions it will make sense one day.  This reminds me of the foggy confusion I had when learning about Greek participles; hopefully this will be just as temporary.
Logged
Anna.T
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 713


Lord have mercy! Κύριε, ἐλέησον!


« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2014, 01:04:06 AM »

Christos Anesti! and welcome to the forum! Smiley

I certainly would not be the best one to explain this. I've been listening to podcasts on it though, because it has been a major question I've had as well.

The priests I have listened to do explain (and I believe I can say it is the Church's position) that sin is as a sickness to us, needing to be healed.

However ... in a way I cannot explain well, there is the sense that other things are going on as well. Christ destroying death is a very big one, for example, and maybe to a lesser degree Christ redeeming us from death.

Please, I am certainly open to correction, but I think one of the mistakes I made when I first started looking into Orthodoxy (I was a Baptist way back too, btw, but I went through a stint in more conservative Pentecostal churches - not so much the wild ones, though I have seen that too) ... but one of the first mistakes I made was to consider "which theory of atonement is the correct one"? When in truth, I would have to say (and I believe you will find the Orthodox Church saying as well) that more than one can be correct at the same time. Christ's incarnation/death/resurrection is just too big and too effective to be contained in a simple little theory of ours, I would say.

Ancient faith radio has lots of good information. I have my priest's blessing and listened mostly to Orthodoxy Live, Speaking the Truth in Love, Ancient Faith Today and Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. Fr. Thomas Hopko I believe it is has a very detailed series I was preparing to listen to on this topic. I have heard it mentioned but not looked it up. He suggested (because my question was the same) "Jesus the Great High Priest" in "The Names of Jesus" series to answer those questions.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/namesofjesus

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

I would say one thing ... if there is something that seems "not right" ... even if it looks really wrong to you, don't shy away. Ask. Find out why the Church does what it does, or says what it does. Not everything is what it seems to "baptist eyes". I so sincerely wish I could get my husband to do this, but I pray one day he will be willing.

In every case so far, I have found when I asked those "hard questions", I was left with a great respect for the answer I got, the wisdom of the Church, and the way that Christ is made center of everything you see, hear, and do there. But it's not always obvious.

Again, welcome. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

(Oh, and if you got the Greek, then I'm sure you can understand this. The theology is coming easier for me, but my Greek is coming very slowly. I've always wanted to study it for the sake of reading the Bible and not having to ask every little question, but being part of a Greek church, it's pretty much a requirement now.)

All the best to you.
Logged

Christ is in our midst!

My replies should not be taken as representing Orthodox teaching - I am only just learning myself.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
mikeforjesus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 573



« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2014, 04:22:00 AM »

"Father all things are possible for You" said Jesus.  It was possible to save without it but not God's will and hence not perfect and therefore it was necessary for Christ to die for God to obtain His will and desire which is perfect
If you crashed someones car even if you said sorry you would have to pay the debt. Christ came and payed our debts in His grace because the price is too big. Love and Justice are two parallel lines which only meet at the cross. These are not my thoughts but of a guest speaker at my church
I do not know if God would have been satisfied with humanity or the rest of humanity if Christ did not die. "He shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied" I am not God to know
If one does not accept the Sacrifice now he makes light of what Christ did and it is up to God to forgive him or not
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 04:25:45 AM by mikeforjesus » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2014, 08:33:39 AM »

Quote
analogizing sin as a crime or transgression is merely one way of explaining it.
Ah, there's a difference in analogies which have evolved into different ontological realities for the respective parties.  You are calling "sin a crime (aka breaking God's law)" a mere analogy.  My protestant teachers taught this as a reality through giving examples of this in Holy Scripture (from the protestant point of view of course).  In my limited exposure thus far, Orthodoxy also presents sin in ontological language as well, "sin is a disease"  instead of "sin is like a disease".  That explains some of my confusion.

By calling this an analogy, it weakens the definition and creates the opportunity to allow another analogy to fill in the gaps.  Unfortunately anyone can create an analogy, many analogies can co-exist, and all analogies are imperfect, though some are better than others.  For this reason I consciously avoid basing what I believe on the shifting sand of analogies.  But obviously I have been doing so unconsciously.

I understand where the analogy of "sin as a crime" comes from.  Can someone give a basis for the analogy of "sin as a disease"? 

I'm also curious to know: If sin is not disobedience...
1. how should I interpret the commands of God in Scripture? If as a simple command then assuming all commands come with an implied punishment, (just ask any parent what happens when a command is issued and disobedience not punished) we are back in the protestant paradigm again.
2. what do I call humanity's disobedience to those commands?
3. what term is used to describe God's action towards humanity's disobedience (say for example Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16)?

Thank you all who have posted, and I ask for your continued patience.  I am hoping that if I keep asking questions it will make sense one day.  This reminds me of the foggy confusion I had when learning about Greek participles; hopefully this will be just as temporary.
I'm not going to have much time on here today, but I will just make this comment and hopefully others can flesh out.  We use analogies, metaphors and similies because we cannot truly understand the full affect that sin has on us.  Therefore, we must relate it to things we do understand. There are actually many metaphors used for the affect that sin has on us.  If I have time later and no one else responds, I will do my best to explore that further. I will also say this.  The Orthodox relish paradoxes and calling sin a transgression while at the same time calling it a disease is one of those paradoxes. There is an understanding that all we see and understand is merely a shadow of the true reality, somewhat like Plato's Cave. Another example would be the Eucharist.  We believe that the bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't come up with explanations on how that might be, we just accept it that it is a mystery and a paradox beyond our comprehension.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2014, 11:31:49 AM »

Hello Anna. T, thank you for the encouragement.  I agree, AFR has lots of good information.  I’ve also enjoyed listening to myocn.net as well.  Fr. Hopko’s Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy podcast was especially helpful many years ago.  It is probably time I revisit them.

Growing up in the poly-dogma world of Protestantism, I’ve learned to guard my convictions carefully and indeed they are few.  The theories of sin and questions of how to view atonement are not among those convictions, important as they are.  This discussion has revealed how deep those “Baptist-eyes” are entrenched, and I hope that as this discussion continues I can learn how to see through the “eyes of orthodoxy.”  A book that has been helpful so far, and I’ve only been able to read parts of it, is entitled “Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes,” by Donald Fairbairn.  He remains Protestant so check with the priests you’ve been talking to before reading it, but it may be helpful to loosen the “Baptist eyes” of your husband.  I am in the same predicament with my wife, but she’s not a big reader.  Several years ago she visited some friends in Malta, and saw what seemed to be people “worshiping” Mary who at the same time had little knowledge of Christ.  As a result, she’s staunchly against iconography and praying to saints.  I’ve resolved to pray and be patient, trusting that as the Lord is leading me to Orthodoxy, he will lead her also.  I will pray for you and your husband too. Lord have mercy on us.

mikeforjesus: Thank you for the Mark 14:36 reference (c.f. Matt 19:26).  I hear a distinction between what “is”, and what “is possible” in your answer.  So another piece of the puzzle is the concept of possibilities versus what happened.  Orthodoxy is saying that God in his omnipotence could have chosen another way for salvation.  This causes me to ask, and forgive me if this seems like a trolling question – I ask sincerely: Is it possible for God to act against his revealed state of being (Reference Reply#5)?

TheTrisagion:  A paradox! Yes I love them too.  Indeed the Orthodox willingness to call things paradoxes has kept me coming back to learn more through the years.  Those who turn analogies into dogmas and then build theology upon them only divide the church.   I have seen too much of this in the protestant world and I pray Orthodoxy may be spared such pride.

I am not opposed to the “sin as a disease” analogy because I do not understand it.  But the “sin as breaking God’s law” affects so many areas of my thought, I cannot discard it yet.  To remove a support beam from a building without first bracing the roof is not very wise.  Answering the questions in Reply#7 will help with this ignorance.  Please continue to have patience and teach me.  Thank you.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2014, 12:31:55 PM »

Quote
I understand where the analogy of "sin as a crime" comes from.  Can someone give a basis for the analogy of "sin as a disease"? 

I'm also curious to know: If sin is not disobedience...
1. how should I interpret the commands of God in Scripture? If as a simple command then assuming all commands come with an implied punishment, (just ask any parent what happens when a command is issued and disobedience not punished) we are back in the protestant paradigm again.
2. what do I call humanity's disobedience to those commands?
3. what term is used to describe God's action towards humanity's disobedience (say for example Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16)?

Psalm 103 (verse 3) references God who forgives sin and heals disease.  Since the passage is not referencing physical maladies, it is safe to read it as a spiritual sickness. I Peter 2:24 speaks of the wounds of Christ healing us. Isaiah 53 has numerous references to Christ taking on our sins by describing them as illness/sickness/injuries. I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Sin is disobedience. That is not a dispute within Orthodoxy, but disobedience is a symptom of our fallen nature. The fallen nature must be "treated" by Christ and healing or "theosis" is the goal. When God gave man commands, He did so for our benefit, not for our condemnation.  When God told Adam not to eat of the fruit or he would die, God did not mean He would kill Adam.  He meant that Adam's action would severe the relationship that he had with God, thereby causing his own death. In this respect, we can view it not as a transgression (Adam's sin) followed by judgment (death), but rather as a self-mutilation that Adam inflicted on himself. When God decrees a consequence, it does not necessarily mean that God has become angered with someone and passes judgment, rather he means that the consequence is an individual cutting himself off from Life. If I tell my daughter not to touch a hot stove and she does so, I have not burned her hand, I merely warned her of the effect that touching it would bring.

When Scripture speaks of God's wrath or anger, those are anthropromorphisms.  It was a simplistic way of explaining to a primitive people what is good, what is bad and what the consequences are. God has revealed much more to us since the days that the Torah were written.  We must use the latter revelation to illuminate the earlier revelation.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2014, 12:33:11 PM »

because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

How would you finish the sentence: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness because..." ?

You might say, "...because God is just." But this seems unhelpful, because being just means that one is righteous, and judges and acts rightly, doesn't it?

So how would you finish this sentence: "Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness, because..." ?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 12:36:09 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2014, 12:37:02 PM »

When Scripture speaks of God's wrath or anger, those are anthropromorphisms. 
God's Divine Energies are not anthropomorphisms.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Anna.T
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 713


Lord have mercy! Κύριε, ἐλέησον!


« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2014, 01:52:45 PM »

Ah, there's a difference in analogies which have evolved into different ontological realities for the respective parties.  You are calling "sin a crime (aka breaking God's law)" a mere analogy.  My protestant teachers taught this as a reality through giving examples of this in Holy Scripture (from the protestant point of view of course). In my limited exposure thus far, Orthodoxy also presents sin in ontological language as well, "sin is a disease"  instead of "sin is like a disease".  That explains some of my confusion.

I understand where the analogy of "sin as a crime" comes from.  Can someone give a basis for the analogy of "sin as a disease"?  


Something I just noticed ... I see you mentioned "sin as a crime" being made a mere analogy, and you also are looking for the basis of the analogy of "sin as a disease"?

I certainly understand where you are coming from. However (and anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong) ... I think what you will find is that the Orthodox Church can consider sin in terms of a crime as an analogy, yes, but the reality they see is that sin is a disease. Not a mere analogy in that case.

Sin is the sickness ... the result is death (which implies we would not have died if there had never been sin?). That is why one of the major ways of looking at Christ's death was in the "breaking" of death.

Every time we meet, our prayer (during this Paschal season) is the song - Christ is risen from the dead, by death trampling down upon death, and to those in the tombs He has granted life.

(I'm so happy, I actually had to look up the English to make sure I had it just right, since I actually know the Greek better - I'm easily pleased, lol)

(and everything I say, I want to leave open to correction, but I will do my best and only repeat what I have been taught by reliable Orthodox priests)

The Church teaches that the result of the fall was death (and of course we were separated from God). In Christ dying (as a man He could die), it became that God Himself (in Christ) entered death. Since God cannot die, death was "spoiled" or "broken" ... Death swallowed a man and encountered God. Death was no longer the victor, and so mankind could be redeemed from death.

That's primary, I would say. Considering how Pascha is celebrated, our hymnology at this season, etc. I think that is accurate to say this is of greatest importance in the faith, concerning Christ's work on our behalf.

One thing that sort of led me into Orthodoxy, that I understood by studying for myself before I discovered what the Orthodox Church taught, is I kept seeing connections between "forgiveness" and "healing" in the Scripture. Why did Jesus say "Rise up and walk, your sins are forgiven?" Why are the two so closely intertwined so many places in Scripture?

A (protestant) friend told me to do a study on the word σῴζω - which I did. Primarily it will be translated "save" (regarding salvation) but I also found repeated use of the word in the context of saving from injury, to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health.

Which at the time only served to confuse me a bit more (my friend was promoting healing as the "right" along with salvation), so I kept searching and when I first understood the Orthodox idea of sin being disease, and Christ being the "cure" for that illness, all of that wondering suddenly seemed to make sense.

I can't tell you where the idea came from (I suspect from the Apostolic understanding, since it seems to be woven into Scripture), but I would imagine the early church fathers further explained. I'm sure someone with experience can better answer that question.

Just wanted to share what little I had. Smiley

Thank you very much for your prayers, and I will pray for you and your wife as well. The advice I was given was to live out the faith - I will say that as I kept a prayer rule, learned the theology, involved myself in the life of the church, and attended services as often as possible, I have changed. Not perfectly, certainly, but it has made a difference that was noticeable to my husband, which got him at least interested. And perhaps that is why he has not forbidden me from going, though he does not understand the church and thinks I am sadly misled. But slowly, it is making a difference in our marriage, and I pray, pray, pray for him. It really does seem to make a difference ... at times I was more faithful and fervent in my prayers and at those times, I could tell a difference.

Will be praying for you both.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 01:57:13 PM by Anna.T » Logged

Christ is in our midst!

My replies should not be taken as representing Orthodox teaching - I am only just learning myself.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2014, 02:32:26 PM »

Here's another analogy to confuse things further  Wink: think of alcoholism. There is a "disease" component (if you will) to this condition, but it is also disobedience and choice, the cause of much suffering and pain to the individual and his/her loved ones, as well as the larger community. Then there are the consequences to the children of alcoholics, in the form of FAS and psychological and emotional problems.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2014, 03:22:45 PM »

Welcome to the forum μαθητης. May the Lord be with you on your Spiritual Journey!

First, let me say that I am quite ignorant of Protestant/Baptist theology and thus am unable to understand why you are conflating God's righteousness with the penal substitution atonement. Rejecting the latter does not result in negation of the former IMHO.

Second, allow me to recommend couple of books written by Evangelical and Baptist theologians regarding the Early Church and Early Church Fathers. I am doing so because as Orthodox we are enjoined to understand the Holy Scriptures not unilaterally but within Holy Tradition. Orthodox are not eager to go solo, so to speak, because we understand that Sola Scriptura, for example, in practice degenerates to In My Personal Opinion (or its Latin equivalent). So, just like Father Stephen in that blog was saying, the context is very critical and, in addition to context within the Scriptures, there is also a context of being part of the Body of Christ, the Church, with an obligation for all to pass on the tradition that is passed down to us. After all, what is more logical than to pay heed to the Apostolic and Pre-Nicene Fathers, in particular.

My first recommendation is Returning to First Century Theology by L. Hudson Turner (which may be available only in Amazon Kindle edition).

Here is his bio: "L. Hudson Turner was born and reared in Mississippi where he attended a Presbyterian church since his elementary school days. He attended Miss. State University and received a bachelor's degree in Banking and Finance. He then attended Dallas Theological Seminary where he received a ThM in Christian Education and a PhD in New Testament Studies. He joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ in 1981 and was a part of that organization's International School of Theology-Asia in the Philippines for 12 years, teaching mostly New Testament courses and serving as the Academic Dean for his last 7 years there. In 2005 he became a teaching fellow with the International Institute for Christian Studies and taught two years at Kaduna State College of Education in Nigeria and three years in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Minzu University in Beijing."

Here is the Amazon's book description: "The question of the conditional (loss of salvation) or unconditional security of the believer has existed in the church since the first century. The Apostolic Fathers, writings dating from before A.D. 150, demonstrate a strong belief in the conditional security of the believer. Some of these writings came by the hand of men who had been taught by the apostles. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp were disciples of John according to historical data. It is very likely that these men were passing on the doctrine of conditional security of the believer that they had received from the apostles themselves. The thesis of this book is that the New Testament does teach that true believers can fall, and fail to enter the coming kingdom of God if they do not repent. Most of the book is an examination of the passages that do teach what we call today “loss of salvation.” The verses and reasons that seem to support the opposite view will also be addressed. The main contribution of the book is the section that attempts to correlate salvation by grace and judgment of works. It claims to solve some of the major paradoxes found in the New Testament."

Again, this book is useful in (a) refuting the "once saved, always saved" Baptist belief and (b) demonstrating that the Apostolic Fathers are reliable witnesses to the tradition that has been passed down to us.  The second recommended book, is interesting in that it also comes from Evangelical Protestant theologians and exhibits a startling agreement with the Orthodox Christian approach to understanding the Early Church.

"The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity," by Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger, was written to debunk the currently fashionable denial of early orthodoxy in the Apostolic Church by the German theologian Walter Bauer and the American theologian Bart Ehrman of Chapel Hill.

Dr. Kostenberger is Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He is also the founder of Biblical Foundations™. Dr. Kostenberger is the author of numerous books on a variety of biblical and theological topics. He also serves as the editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and as Director of Acquisitions for B&H Academic.

Michael J. Kruger (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, and the author of a number of articles and books on early Christianity.

From the book's description by Amazon, "Köstenberger and Kruger's accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the "Bauer Thesis" using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church." Indeed, the authors consider various approaches to understanding Early Christianity but agree only with that of Father John Behr, Dean of the St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. 

I hope that I have whetted your appetite.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2014, 04:12:42 PM »

Here is a source that discusses the present state of Protestantism and predicts a possible future. I am posting it not to dispute anything already said on this thread but as good information.  http://orthodoxbridge.com/back-to-the-future-for-protestantism/
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2014, 11:45:36 AM »

TheTrisagion:  Psa. 103 is a beautiful psalm, and I should have recalled Isa. 53 on my own.  I even recognized 1 Peter 2:24 after I had read it.  Thank you from bringing these to my attention.
Quote
Sin is disobedience. That is not a dispute within Orthodoxy, but disobedience is a symptom of our fallen nature. The fallen nature must be "treated" by Christ and healing or "theosis" is the goal. When God gave man commands, He did so for our benefit, not for our condemnation.  When God told Adam not to eat of the fruit or he would die, God did not mean He would kill Adam.  He meant that Adam's action would severe the relationship that he had with God, thereby causing his own death. In this respect, we can view it not as a transgression (Adam's sin) followed by judgment (death), but rather as a self-mutilation that Adam inflicted on himself. When God decrees a consequence, it does not necessarily mean that God has become angered with someone and passes judgment, rather he means that the consequence is an individual cutting himself off from Life. If I tell my daughter not to touch a hot stove and she does so, I have not burned her hand, I merely warned her of the effect that touching it would bring.

I have no issue with this explanation.  Allow me to note a few things that may be helpful to others.  First I note this does not reject the idea of condemnation for disobedience rather it quickly moves on to the more important matters at hand.  Secondly, I feel the true weakness of the Protestant emphasis on justification is that it leaves people without the goal of theosis, whereas it is central to the explanation above.  The protestant idea of sanctification is too often separated from justification (at a minimum it is spoken of separately) – one of the reasons I am drawn to orthodoxy.  Third, the commands of God are in their proper perspective: to teach what causes death, and what leads to life (Galations 4:1-5, c.f. Deut. 30:15-20).
Quote
When Scripture speaks of God's wrath or anger, those are anthropromorphisms.

I must disagree with this statement along with NicholasMyra.  There seems to be a common idea that wrath and anger are bad things and therefore cannot be attributed to a loving God.  Like all emotions they are a gift from God and are good when used appropriately, but they can also be abused and used inappropriately.  IMHO the wrath of God is good, justified, and yes even loving. 

NicholasMyra: Thank you for joining the conversation. 
Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness because “the wages of sin is death”.  To reject or redefine to oblivion the idea that “the wages of sin is death” has great repercussions for interpreting scripture.  (I do not believe those who have replied thus far have done this.)  If the consequence seems too harsh for some then I sympathize.  When my children disobey what I have asked of them I certainly do not hold them to this standard.  Jesus conquered death, but that does not change the nature of this universe that death follows sin.  It is a principle that has been consistent from the beginning; no other wages of sin is mentioned.  Only by the mercy and love of God is death not immediate.

Also, I challenge those who say it’s too harsh to take a good look at how powerful sin is.  Adam and Eve is obvious, note also how the sin of King David affected his whole family and for generations to come.  Think about how the little lie we tell in front of our children becomes trans-generational and affects future relationships.  It spreads just like a contagious Disease!  Got to love co-existing analogies...  A judgment I believe is still necessary, when one refuses to acknowledge that sin is sin or that the wages of sin is death.  A medical doctor must still make a judgment, a determination, of the patient’s condition.  Whether the judgment is made in a court room or a doctor’s observation room, the result remains the same.

Both analogies fit and are useful.  I’ve started reading St. Gregory of Nyssa, the Great Catechism.  And in the prologue he makes the wonderful observation that the argument which works for the poly-theistic Greek philosopher will not necessarily work for the Jewish monotheist.  Perhaps this observation applies to this discussion.

Hello Anna. T, thank you for your prayers.  You are correct in your observation of “mere analogy”.  And yes, some (most) of the Orthodox teaching I’ve seen speaks ontologically that sin is a disease.  And while I’m not ready to make such a statement, thanks to TheTrisagon’s post I certainly understand the concept much better and have seen the benefit of this perspective.  I’m not ready to disregard the idea that sin is a crime either, though I am willing to say it is a good analogy.  Glory to God and thanks to all, this is progress!

Welcome to the conversation Carl Kraeff.  Thank you for the resources and the appeal to my enjoyment of academic material.  I have certainly heard of Dr. Turner’s journey, though I have not read the book.  I threw out the idea of “once saved always saved” years ago (but don’t tell the elders of my Southern Baptist church); it just doesn’t match the pattern in scripture.  Likewise the concept of Sola Scriptura I find lacking.  I have observed that one can describe the Protestant methods of Hermeneutics and exegesis as their “Tradition”. 

The book by Dr. Kostenberger and Kruger’s has been on my reading list for a while.  My hobby is transcribing manuscripts for IGNTP (International Greek New Testament Project; IGNTP.org) and I'm fascinated by the interpretative notes in the margins.  I find the protestant ignorance of the history of scripture and its interpretation throughout church history very sad indeed.  Sorry fellow protestant brothers and sisters but the Bible wasn’t rediscovered by Luther.

Quote
conflating God's righteousness with the penal substitution atonement. Rejecting the latter does not result in negation of the former IMHO.
And this is exactly the reason for this thread.  Penal substitution dove-tail’s beautifully with God’s righteousness and the “sin as a crime” concept.  In the protestant mind they are tied together.  To separate the two feels a bit like explaining to a 5 year old how to tie a shoe in reverse, (cross, go over and under, make two loop, cross again and pull.  Here’s the visual picture: llup owt dna niaga ssorc, pool a ekam, rednu dna revo og, ssorc).  Adding to the confusion is the change in terminology or re-understanding of them (see reply#6 above).  The terminology of the righteousness of God is absent from the ransom theory of atonement (at least the ones I’ve seen).  So to the protestant mind, rejecting penal atonement pulls out God’s righteousness and sure enough the language is missing from the ransom theory.  This thread seeks out the missing language of the righteousness of God.

Above, I made the comment that a medical doctor must still make a judgment of the patient’s condition.  This appears to be where the righteousness of God comes into play.  Any thoughts?

Again thanks to all!
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2014, 12:28:58 PM »

When I mentioned the descriptions of wrath of God as being anthropromorphic, I did not intend to mean that they are not true or that the energies of God are mere analogies.  Rather, the manner in which some OT writers presented God in their writings is sometimes anthropromorphic, likely for the purpose of enabling the peoples they were writing to in better understanding God through their own eyes.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2014, 12:37:28 AM »

Quote
First, let me say that I am quite ignorant of Protestant/Baptist theology and thus am unable to understand why you are conflating God's righteousness with the penal substitution atonement. Rejecting the latter does not result in negation of the former IMHO.
Another thought on this.  Many of those who consider themselves conservative protestants are also particularly sensitive to this question of God's righteousness.  Too many of our "fellow protestants" have tried to explain away morality and the righteousness of God taught by Holy Scripture.  The more liberally minded have sought to marginalize sin to accommodate this modern society (including rejecting the idea of Hell because God says he is a loving God - not in the meaning of Orthodoxy I've discovered, but in a way that seeks to justify their unrepentant lifestyle).  Please be patient with the protestants who are confused in this issue; we have reason to be wary.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,077



« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2014, 12:57:01 AM »

Quote
First, let me say that I am quite ignorant of Protestant/Baptist theology and thus am unable to understand why you are conflating God's righteousness with the penal substitution atonement. Rejecting the latter does not result in negation of the former IMHO.
Another thought on this.  Many of those who consider themselves conservative protestants are also particularly sensitive to this question of God's righteousness.  Too many of our "fellow protestants" have tried to explain away morality and the righteousness of God taught by Holy Scripture.  The more liberally minded have sought to marginalize sin to accommodate this modern society (including rejecting the idea of Hell because God says he is a loving God - not in the meaning of Orthodoxy I've discovered, but in a way that seeks to justify their unrepentant lifestyle).  Please be patient with the protestants who are confused in this issue; we have reason to be wary.

This is an indeed an issue to keep in mind regarding many Western Christians approaching Orthodoxy, Protestant or not. For example, a conservative Catholic might hear an Orthodox say "married priests" or something, and immediately think they also want female priests and the whole shebang. Likewise, if someone hears us rejecting fundamentalist approaches to the Bible, they may assume we thereby approach it as liberal Protestants/Bible critics do. Etc.

We don't fit neatly into the standard Western (especially North American) camps, and it shows with these sorts of things.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,354


« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2014, 12:44:02 PM »

Justice in terms of uprightness is specific to the Old Testament, the old law (or to morality). But Christ brought the law of love which is higher. It doesn't mean that the Old Law is abolished, but that it is transcended. Justice in terms of the Old Law means to be upright or moral, while justice in terms of the New Law means to be in accord with the truth (of love); thus the ultimate "injustice" is to be in opposition to the truth or aberration or darkness.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2014, 05:25:10 PM »

Quote
First, let me say that I am quite ignorant of Protestant/Baptist theology and thus am unable to understand why you are conflating God's righteousness with the penal substitution atonement. Rejecting the latter does not result in negation of the former IMHO.
Another thought on this.  Many of those who consider themselves conservative protestants are also particularly sensitive to this question of God's righteousness.  Too many of our "fellow protestants" have tried to explain away morality and the righteousness of God taught by Holy Scripture.  The more liberally minded have sought to marginalize sin to accommodate this modern society (including rejecting the idea of Hell because God says he is a loving God - not in the meaning of Orthodoxy I've discovered, but in a way that seeks to justify their unrepentant lifestyle).  Please be patient with the protestants who are confused in this issue; we have reason to be wary.

This is an indeed an issue to keep in mind regarding many Western Christians approaching Orthodoxy, Protestant or not. For example, a conservative Catholic might hear an Orthodox say "married priests" or something, and immediately think they also want female priests and the whole shebang. Likewise, if someone hears us rejecting fundamentalist approaches to the Bible, they may assume we thereby approach it as liberal Protestants/Bible critics do. Etc.

We don't fit neatly into the standard Western (especially North American) camps, and it shows with these sorts of things.
This is definitely true.  I had the hardest time when I first started exploring Orthodoxy trying to figure out how it fit in my understanding of the liberal/conservative spectrum of religion.  I discovered that don't fit on that spectrum at all, and probably not on the same plane of conversation.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2014, 12:48:02 AM »

Hello Nephi,
Quote
We don't fit neatly into the standard Western (especially North American) camps, and it shows with these sorts of things.
Which is why I'm grateful for this forum.  Thanks to all who have participated!

Hello IoanC, Thank you for joining the conversation.  However I'm not sure I agree with the distinction between Justice in the Old and New Testaments.  This may be relevant to my confusion so allow me to briefly give my perspective so that my error may be corrected.  On the other hand, I may be saying the same thing in essence but with different words.

First, I believe that God does not change and what he has expected of humanity has remained the same from Adam and Eve to the present day.  This is made explicit in Micah 6:8. "He has shown you O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."  This is in the context of the preceding verses asking, "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?..." (verse 7) and is consistent with the character of Godly men throughout the OT.  Couple this with St. Paul's perspective on the Law in Galatians 4:1-3 and IHMO, the OT law/morality teaches the very things which God expects: Justice, Loving mercy, walking humbly.  Christ did not bring the law of love as a higher law, rather he cut through all the Pharisee's "red tape" (excess paperwork) and taught plainly what was there all along.  In the purest of mathematical senses LOVE=Justice, mercy, humility and visa versa.  In my opinion it is not specific to one or the other testaments but Love is the Law of the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings (Mat 22:37-40), the Gospels, the Epistles, indeed of the whole cannon of Holy Scripture. 

In this holistic understanding of Love, I completely understand the Orthodox emphasis on God's love.  Unfortunately, this word, "love" is a cheep word in today's culture.  Too often, Love is associated with no rules, cheep grace, and pleasure - i.e. separated from justice.  I had to be sure this was not the case in American Orthodox teaching and became worried with the lack of the protestant righteousness language.  I am grateful that "love" to the Orthodox is not shallow.

Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2014, 01:30:45 AM »

what you need to remember is that "righteous" or "justice" is not something above God that He is obligated to follow. When it means a strict set of behaviors, it is a tool. To bring people into communion with God. One cannot be "unjust" and love God, because by being unjust they have willfully chosen that which is against God. That is true righteousness, the communion with God that comes from choosing Him.

God IS just in Orthodoxy. When a sinner comes to repentance, they absolutely despise their sins and do everything in their power to atone for them, all the while acknowledging that remission comes from God alone. I remember stories of how St. Mary suffered horribly for 17 years during her monasticism, the same amount of time she lived as a reprobate, or how another monk knew that he would end up getting eaten by lions because he once killed a man. Sin and evil are real things, but so is forgiveness. God does desire punishment, but not for its own sake. God did not create man to punish him. He created man to be glorified by him. And punishment helps us to do so if we accept it with faith.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,354


« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2014, 04:25:41 AM »

Hello Nephi,
Quote
We don't fit neatly into the standard Western (especially North American) camps, and it shows with these sorts of things.
Which is why I'm grateful for this forum.  Thanks to all who have participated!

Hello IoanC, Thank you for joining the conversation.  However I'm not sure I agree with the distinction between Justice in the Old and New Testaments.  This may be relevant to my confusion so allow me to briefly give my perspective so that my error may be corrected.  On the other hand, I may be saying the same thing in essence but with different words.

First, I believe that God does not change and what he has expected of humanity has remained the same from Adam and Eve to the present day.  This is made explicit in Micah 6:8. "He has shown you O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."  This is in the context of the preceding verses asking, "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?..." (verse 7) and is consistent with the character of Godly men throughout the OT.  Couple this with St. Paul's perspective on the Law in Galatians 4:1-3 and IHMO, the OT law/morality teaches the very things which God expects: Justice, Loving mercy, walking humbly.  Christ did not bring the law of love as a higher law, rather he cut through all the Pharisee's "red tape" (excess paperwork) and taught plainly what was there all along.  In the purest of mathematical senses LOVE=Justice, mercy, humility and visa versa.  In my opinion it is not specific to one or the other testaments but Love is the Law of the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings (Mat 22:37-40), the Gospels, the Epistles, indeed of the whole cannon of Holy Scripture. 

In this holistic understanding of Love, I completely understand the Orthodox emphasis on God's love.  Unfortunately, this word, "love" is a cheep word in today's culture.  Too often, Love is associated with no rules, cheep grace, and pleasure - i.e. separated from justice.  I had to be sure this was not the case in American Orthodox teaching and became worried with the lack of the protestant righteousness language.  I am grateful that "love" to the Orthodox is not shallow.



I know what you mean by shallow love. However, the holistic understanding of love is closest to the real meaning of love. There are two extremes: 1. to not understand the old law (morality) and fail to be upright. 2. to remain on the level of the old law and to mistake love for law (or for morality) or have a mixed view. Yes, love means law (or justice), but not in the sense that justice is the definition of love. Love is love. And to put it in the opposite way, love is the highest justice; that holistic (or transcendent/mystical let's say) love is actually the highest virtue (it takes the greatest courage and maturity) and is the most beautiful and rewarding. 
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2014, 08:16:31 AM »

I feel incline to agree that Love is the highest Righteousness, as it is the highest of virtues. The New Testament defines God as Love.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2014, 12:32:40 PM »

Quote
In this holistic understanding of Love, I completely understand the Orthodox emphasis on God's love.  Unfortunately, this word, "love" is a cheep word in today's culture.  Too often, Love is associated with no rules, cheep grace, and pleasure - i.e. separated from justice.  I had to be sure this was not the case in American Orthodox teaching and became worried with the lack of the protestant righteousness language.  I am grateful that "love" to the Orthodox is not shallow.

I know what you mean by shallow love. However, the holistic understanding of love is closest to the real meaning of love. There are two extremes: 1. to not understand the old law (morality) and fail to be upright. 2. to remain on the level of the old law and to mistake love for law (or for morality) or have a mixed view. Yes, love means law (or justice), but not in the sense that justice is the definition of love. Love is love. And to put it in the opposite way, love is the highest justice; that holistic (or transcendent/mystical let's say) love is actually the highest virtue (it takes the greatest courage and maturity) and is the most beautiful and rewarding. 
Thank you, it sounds like we are on the same page.

Hello William,
Quote
what you need to remember is that "righteous" or "justice" is not something above God that He is obligated to follow.
 
It sounds like this statement correctly reacts to the charge that there is a "justice" apart from God - which God must follow.  I agree no such thing exists.  I'm getting confused when I hear/read this statement when the word "above" is not so explicit: "righteous" or "justice" is not something that God is obligated to follow."  For example, I reference an early post by mikeforJesus (reply #9) that suggests IF it was God’s will, he could have chosen another method of healing – the possibility exists, “all things are possible for You (God).”  This possibility is reconciled to reality through the language, “but it is fitting” or “but it was God’s will”.

To these “Baptist-eyes”, the possibility of another method cannot exist because of who God is:  God is Love, the perfect and full love IoanC described as being the highest justice – therefore the death of sin cannot be simply dismissed or healed by any other means except death. 
My premise is this: It is impossible for God to deny himself.   
(I tried to get the forum’s opinion on this premise in Reply#11 with the question: Is it possible for God to act against his revealed state of being (Reference Reply#5)? – no one answered...)

Here is an important distinction: I reject the idea of a “justice” above/apart from God.  I affirm the idea of a “justice” inherent in the Essence of God that cannot be denied.  It is as you say:
Quote
God IS just
It is a mysterious thing.

Now this is just as important: the use of the word “obligation” is inaccurate (or at least confusing and requires clarification) when describing this premise because of the commonly implied attitude of the one being obligated – acting out of duty apart from one’s desire.  God is not “obligated” because the impossibility for God to deny himself is not apart from his desire/will, but is in perfect harmony with his desire.  This is the paradox/mystery of God being perfect in Love and perfect in Justice.

The re-understanding of this paradox through the language “but it is fitting” or “but it was God’s will”, seems a bit weak and unbalances the paradox IMHO due to the possibilities it allows. 

I apologize for my bold assertions.  Please correct my errors and ignorance.
Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2014, 01:00:52 PM »

I agree with what you've said.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2014, 02:08:31 PM »

To these “Baptist-eyes”, the possibility of another method cannot exist because of who God is:  God is Love, the perfect and full love IoanC described as being the highest justice – therefore the death of sin cannot be simply dismissed or healed by any other means except death.  
My premise is this: It is impossible for God to deny himself.  

Of course another method can exist. God can do whatever He wants to do. If they are lucky, the greatest, wisest and holiest saints can "understand" only the merest most infinitesimal fraction of the reality of God. We can only make assertions like the above with the caveat: in so far as we understand Him. Which is not much!   Wink
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 02:09:06 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2014, 03:03:58 PM »

Quote
In this holistic understanding of Love, I completely understand the Orthodox emphasis on God's love.  Unfortunately, this word, "love" is a cheep word in today's culture.  Too often, Love is associated with no rules, cheep grace, and pleasure - i.e. separated from justice.  I had to be sure this was not the case in American Orthodox teaching and became worried with the lack of the protestant righteousness language.  I am grateful that "love" to the Orthodox is not shallow.

I know what you mean by shallow love. However, the holistic understanding of love is closest to the real meaning of love. There are two extremes: 1. to not understand the old law (morality) and fail to be upright. 2. to remain on the level of the old law and to mistake love for law (or for morality) or have a mixed view. Yes, love means law (or justice), but not in the sense that justice is the definition of love. Love is love. And to put it in the opposite way, love is the highest justice; that holistic (or transcendent/mystical let's say) love is actually the highest virtue (it takes the greatest courage and maturity) and is the most beautiful and rewarding. 
Thank you, it sounds like we are on the same page.

Hello William,
Quote
what you need to remember is that "righteous" or "justice" is not something above God that He is obligated to follow.
 
It sounds like this statement correctly reacts to the charge that there is a "justice" apart from God - which God must follow.  I agree no such thing exists.  I'm getting confused when I hear/read this statement when the word "above" is not so explicit: "righteous" or "justice" is not something that God is obligated to follow."  For example, I reference an early post by mikeforJesus (reply #9) that suggests IF it was God’s will, he could have chosen another method of healing – the possibility exists, “all things are possible for You (God).”  This possibility is reconciled to reality through the language, “but it is fitting” or “but it was God’s will”.

To these “Baptist-eyes”, the possibility of another method cannot exist because of who God is:  God is Love, the perfect and full love IoanC described as being the highest justice – therefore the death of sin cannot be simply dismissed or healed by any other means except death. 
My premise is this: It is impossible for God to deny himself.   
(I tried to get the forum’s opinion on this premise in Reply#11 with the question: Is it possible for God to act against his revealed state of being (Reference Reply#5)? – no one answered...)

Here is an important distinction: I reject the idea of a “justice” above/apart from God.  I affirm the idea of a “justice” inherent in the Essence of God that cannot be denied.  It is as you say:
Quote
God IS just
It is a mysterious thing.

Now this is just as important: the use of the word “obligation” is inaccurate (or at least confusing and requires clarification) when describing this premise because of the commonly implied attitude of the one being obligated – acting out of duty apart from one’s desire.  God is not “obligated” because the impossibility for God to deny himself is not apart from his desire/will, but is in perfect harmony with his desire.  This is the paradox/mystery of God being perfect in Love and perfect in Justice.

The re-understanding of this paradox through the language “but it is fitting” or “but it was God’s will”, seems a bit weak and unbalances the paradox IMHO due to the possibilities it allows. 

I apologize for my bold assertions.  Please correct my errors and ignorance.


I think in Orthodoxy Righteousness is an uncreated energy of God not his essence.

Is God obligated to be Just? Some would say 'No'. And often looking at the world people say that it is not just, or life is not just. And if I am not mistaken, some Orthodox elders/fathers(?) say there is nothing just in Christ dying for us and forgiving our sins. I heard it said that just would have been for God to deal with all our sins, and imperfection accordingly, not forgive them.

The questions according to me is, is there a distinction between Divine Justice and our justice and Divine Love and our love? And is there a distinction/separation between God's energies and his essence? What is the nature of that distinction and how do we perceive divine energies? Is our experience of divine energies full? When the Scripture says 'God is Love' does that speak of his energy or his essence? Is there a distinction between God's Love and love as we know it? Does God love differently, is his righteousness different than ours,etc?

There are different ways of looking at the Atonement of Christ and the Penal is the most cruel and tragic one.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2014, 05:36:59 PM »

Hello Katherineofdixie, Thank you for reminding of the depths of the mystery of God.  That is a wise caveat. 

In so far as I understand God (which is not very much), I cannot fathom how God could deny his own revelation about himself – but I’m willing to learn.

Quote
I think in Orthodoxy Righteousness is an uncreated energy of God not his essence.
Hello Dan-Romania that is an interesting point.  My exposure to the distinction of essence and energies (and uncreated energies) is lacking.  I only know of them and that they play a key role in many Orthodox theologies.  Can anyone expound on this as it relates to God's righteousness? 

Quote
Is God obligated to be Just? Some would say 'No'. And often looking at the world people say that it is not just, or life is not just. And if I am not mistaken, some Orthodox elders/fathers(?) say there is nothing just in Christ dying for us and forgiving our sins. I heard it said that just would have been for God to deal with all our sins, and imperfection accordingly, not forgive them.
First we must not equate, “just” with human sense of “fairness”.  Even if a murder is put to death for his crime, the victim and their family will never experience fairness, but they will see justice done.
Secondly, I agree, Christ dying for our salvation is not fair justice. Our death would be just because we have turned against God.  Christ rescuing us has everything to do with love. 

Let us consider love for a moment.  Does love have anything to do with fairness?  My wife cooks, cleans, homeschools my children, works every bit as hard as I do, plus she puts up with me!  Yet she does not receive a paycheck.  Is that fair? (Yes I’ve offered to switch with her, but she won’t do it Grin)  On the other hand, she sacrifices her time and energy so I may enjoy a loving home where I may live and raise my children.  Think of any display of True Love, (not the shallow stuff).  Did that act of love have anything to do with fairness? 

Justice is that sin equals death; Love is that Christ conquered death so that we may live.  As I am learning not to cut God’s righteousness out of the healing analogy, please do not remove God’s love from the penal analogy.  In so far as I understand (which is not very much), one should not unbalance God’s justice and love. 

Quote
The questions according to me is, is there a distinction between Divine Justice and our justice and Divine Love and our love?... Is there a distinction between God's Love and love as we know it? Does God love differently, is his righteousness different than ours,etc?
Divine Justice and Love is perfect, ours is imperfect.  And if one can accept the premise above: Divine Justice and Love does not change, ours changes too many times to count.

Quote
There are different ways of looking at the Atonement of Christ
Yes I agree.  To reject any of them without seeing it through the proper eyes leaves one’s opinion of Atonement incomplete.

Quote
the Penal is the most cruel and tragic one
  Perhaps, but to the extent that it is cruel and tragic the Love of God is also manifested.  If you say it is the cruelest then I also suggest it displays the greatest depth of God’s love.   

My meager defense of the penal analogy is not important however, though I hope it will reveal an ignorance that may be corrected on another thread. 
Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
Secondly, Can someone speak to Dan-Romania’s statement and questions?
Quote
I think in Orthodoxy Righteousness is an uncreated energy of God not his essence... And is there a distinction/separation between God's energies and his essence? What is the nature of that distinction and how do we perceive divine energies? Is our experience of divine energies full? When the Scripture says 'God is Love' does that speak of his energy or his essence?

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed!  Please continue to teach me.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2014, 07:05:54 PM »

Quote
Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the question, but the statement itself seems to be somewhat intelligible. For someone to "deny" themselves, there is first a desire, followed by a resolute action to refuse the desire.  In other words, denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.  Am I perhaps not understanding the question you are exploring?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2014, 04:19:50 AM »

When Scripture speaks of God's wrath or anger, those are anthropromorphisms.  
God's Divine Energies are not anthropomorphisms.

We only know of anger, love, and all human feelings in human ways. Are you saying that God himself (the divine nature) hates, loves, angers in human ways? Didn't the fathers call these anthropomorphisms and said that the divine qualities that they are distinct of the human ones?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 04:21:58 AM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2014, 04:23:39 AM »

God denying Himself?

The Incarnation?

Phil. "he emptied himself"
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2014, 04:26:07 AM »

Hello Katherineofdixie, Thank you for reminding of the depths of the mystery of God.  That is a wise caveat. 

In so far as I understand God (which is not very much), I cannot fathom how God could deny his own revelation about himself – but I’m willing to learn.

Quote
I think in Orthodoxy Righteousness is an uncreated energy of God not his essence.
Hello Dan-Romania that is an interesting point.  My exposure to the distinction of essence and energies (and uncreated energies) is lacking.  I only know of them and that they play a key role in many Orthodox theologies.  Can anyone expound on this as it relates to God's righteousness? 

Quote
Is God obligated to be Just? Some would say 'No'. And often looking at the world people say that it is not just, or life is not just. And if I am not mistaken, some Orthodox elders/fathers(?) say there is nothing just in Christ dying for us and forgiving our sins. I heard it said that just would have been for God to deal with all our sins, and imperfection accordingly, not forgive them.
First we must not equate, “just” with human sense of “fairness”.  Even if a murder is put to death for his crime, the victim and their family will never experience fairness, but they will see justice done.
Secondly, I agree, Christ dying for our salvation is not fair justice. Our death would be just because we have turned against God.  Christ rescuing us has everything to do with love. 

Let us consider love for a moment.  Does love have anything to do with fairness?  My wife cooks, cleans, homeschools my children, works every bit as hard as I do, plus she puts up with me!  Yet she does not receive a paycheck.  Is that fair? (Yes I’ve offered to switch with her, but she won’t do it Grin)  On the other hand, she sacrifices her time and energy so I may enjoy a loving home where I may live and raise my children.  Think of any display of True Love, (not the shallow stuff).  Did that act of love have anything to do with fairness? 

Justice is that sin equals death; Love is that Christ conquered death so that we may live.  As I am learning not to cut God’s righteousness out of the healing analogy, please do not remove God’s love from the penal analogy.  In so far as I understand (which is not very much), one should not unbalance God’s justice and love. 

Quote
The questions according to me is, is there a distinction between Divine Justice and our justice and Divine Love and our love?... Is there a distinction between God's Love and love as we know it? Does God love differently, is his righteousness different than ours,etc?
Divine Justice and Love is perfect, ours is imperfect.  And if one can accept the premise above: Divine Justice and Love does not change, ours changes too many times to count.

Quote
There are different ways of looking at the Atonement of Christ
Yes I agree.  To reject any of them without seeing it through the proper eyes leaves one’s opinion of Atonement incomplete.

Quote
the Penal is the most cruel and tragic one
  Perhaps, but to the extent that it is cruel and tragic the Love of God is also manifested.  If you say it is the cruelest then I also suggest it displays the greatest depth of God’s love.   

My meager defense of the penal analogy is not important however, though I hope it will reveal an ignorance that may be corrected on another thread. 
Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
Secondly, Can someone speak to Dan-Romania’s statement and questions?
Quote
I think in Orthodoxy Righteousness is an uncreated energy of God not his essence... And is there a distinction/separation between God's energies and his essence? What is the nature of that distinction and how do we perceive divine energies? Is our experience of divine energies full? When the Scripture says 'God is Love' does that speak of his energy or his essence?

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed!  Please continue to teach me.

Why does Justice(retribution) matter so much to you? When was the last time justice comforted you?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2014, 12:56:06 PM »

Quote
μαθητης:Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
TheTrisagion: Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the question, but the statement itself seems to be somewhat intelligible. For someone to "deny" themselves, there is first a desire, followed by a resolute action to refuse the desire.  In other words, denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.  Am I perhaps not understanding the question you are exploring? Dan-Romania: God denying Himself? ... The Incarnation? ... Phil. "he emptied himself"
It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,

If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.

I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?

Quote
denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.
God may not be restricted by time, but he does operate in it.  The issue of time is a tricky one, another thread perhaps...

Quote
Why does Justice(retribution) matter so much to you? When was the last time justice comforted you?
Two good questions; I’ll try to be brief.  More than a decade ago I found myself faced with living life outside the umbrella of my parents.  I had been taught doctrine and to believe in God.  Thanks be to God I experienced my parents living what they believed growing up, but now it had become my turn to decide how to live.  There were two social pitfalls around me I sought to avoid, a compartmentalized life (religion only on Sunday, “real life” every other day) and the world’s version of love (see mention to shallow love in previous posts).  I searched the scriptures and found what I had been looking for summarized in two passages, Mat 22:37-40 and Micah 6:8.  In Micah 6:8, God chastises the people of Judah for their shallow religion, going through the religious motions while they lived however they wanted.  I soon realized the wisdom of justice and love and humility as the building blocks of Life.  The paradox of God’s justice and love became apparent.  I saw some who emphasized justice but forgot to love; they became proud in their righteousness, cold and unforgiving blind to their own unrighteousness.  I saw others who emphasized love but forgot about justice; forgiveness was free and no discipline enforced.  They became proud in their forgiven state and since it was free, love became cheap; sin and death abounded. 

I’ve learned that the way of life is a filled with both Justice and Love.  In love is justice, and in justice is love.  I have emphasized Justice in this thread, because in my exploration of Orthodoxy, I’ve came across statements and theories (such as the one mentioned previously in this thread) which did not have the language I expected.  If the situation was reversed and I saw justice emphasized without mention of love, this thread would be about the love of God instead of his righteousness.

I see you have equated Justice and retribution.  This is an incomplete equation.  Do not forget there are two sides to Justice: punishment for disobedience and also freedom(life) for obedience.   In justice I find Life and guidance for how to live it; this is how I take comfort in justice.  Let me quickly add, I believe life is not about justice alone but must be harmonized with Love and humility. 
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2014, 01:04:34 PM »

Quote
μαθητης:Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
TheTrisagion: Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the question, but the statement itself seems to be somewhat intelligible. For someone to "deny" themselves, there is first a desire, followed by a resolute action to refuse the desire.  In other words, denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.  Am I perhaps not understanding the question you are exploring? Dan-Romania: God denying Himself? ... The Incarnation? ... Phil. "he emptied himself"
It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,

If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.

I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?

No, if God declares Himself to be something He is that something. He cannot be opposed to His own nature. The wages of sin is death and there is no other way of salvation other than the death and resurrection of Christ. But it is not in the manner of "you sin, God pays you what you deserve". It is more like "you sin, the natural consequence is death".  If you stick your finger on the hot stove as a child, your parent did not come and burn you as a consequence, rather it was a natural consequence. Sin is death because it separates us from God. It is through the combined work of Christ and our repentance that that wound is healed and we are restored again and made alive.  The exact mechanism of that restoration is a mystery and it perhaps is unique for each individual, perhaps similar to how a child does not know how a burn heals, but he sees a scab form and eventually the skin is restored.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2014, 02:34:23 PM »

Quote
μαθητης:Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
TheTrisagion: Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the question, but the statement itself seems to be somewhat intelligible. For someone to "deny" themselves, there is first a desire, followed by a resolute action to refuse the desire.  In other words, denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.  Am I perhaps not understanding the question you are exploring? Dan-Romania: God denying Himself? ... The Incarnation? ... Phil. "he emptied himself"
It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,

If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.

I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?

No, if God declares Himself to be something He is that something. He cannot be opposed to His own nature. The wages of sin is death and there is no other way of salvation other than the death and resurrection of Christ. But it is not in the manner of "you sin, God pays you what you deserve". It is more like "you sin, the natural consequence is death".  If you stick your finger on the hot stove as a child, your parent did not come and burn you as a consequence, rather it was a natural consequence. Sin is death because it separates us from God. It is through the combined work of Christ and our repentance that that wound is healed and we are restored again and made alive.  The exact mechanism of that restoration is a mystery and it perhaps is unique for each individual, perhaps similar to how a child does not know how a burn heals, but he sees a scab form and eventually the skin is restored.

+1

I think that this is the problem, perhaps. To my ears at least, the OP's understanding/interpretation of God's justice sounds a little legalistic or juridical. In the sense of, "you went over the speed limit, now you have to pay a fine." Death is not so much a punishment inflicted by God for our offenses as it is a natural consequence of sin and a broken world. Jesus did not so much "pay our fine" as he did rescue us and restore us to relationship with God. (although I think that one can make somewhat of a case for the penal substitution theory, it has always sounded cruel and capricious to me. I think a better answer is that we don't know the "exact mechanism.")
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2014, 05:07:47 PM »

Quote
μαθητης:Is anyone willing to correct my premise: In so far as I can understand it is impossible for God to deny himself?
TheTrisagion: Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the question, but the statement itself seems to be somewhat intelligible. For someone to "deny" themselves, there is first a desire, followed by a resolute action to refuse the desire.  In other words, denial of a desire requires a time continuum, which God does not operate under.  Am I perhaps not understanding the question you are exploring? Dan-Romania: God denying Himself? ... The Incarnation? ... Phil. "he emptied himself"


Quote
Why does Justice(retribution) matter so much to you? When was the last time justice comforted you?
Two good questions; I’ll try to be brief.  More than a decade ago I found myself faced with living life outside the umbrella of my parents.  I had been taught doctrine and to believe in God.  Thanks be to God I experienced my parents living what they believed growing up, but now it had become my turn to decide how to live.  There were two social pitfalls around me I sought to avoid, a compartmentalized life (religion only on Sunday, “real life” every other day) and the world’s version of love (see mention to shallow love in previous posts).  I searched the scriptures and found what I had been looking for summarized in two passages, Mat 22:37-40 and Micah 6:8.  In Micah 6:8, God chastises the people of Judah for their shallow religion, going through the religious motions while they lived however they wanted.  I soon realized the wisdom of justice and love and humility as the building blocks of Life.  The paradox of God’s justice and love became apparent.  I saw some who emphasized justice but forgot to love; they became proud in their righteousness, cold and unforgiving blind to their own unrighteousness.  I saw others who emphasized love but forgot about justice; forgiveness was free and no discipline enforced.  They became proud in their forgiven state and since it was free, love became cheap; sin and death abounded. 

I’ve learned that the way of life is a filled with both Justice and Love.  In love is justice, and in justice is love.  I have emphasized Justice in this thread, because in my exploration of Orthodoxy, I’ve came across statements and theories (such as the one mentioned previously in this thread) which did not have the language I expected.  If the situation was reversed and I saw justice emphasized without mention of love, this thread would be about the love of God instead of his righteousness.

I see you have equated Justice and retribution.  This is an incomplete equation.  Do not forget there are two sides to Justice: punishment for disobedience and also freedom(life) for obedience.   In justice I find Life and guidance for how to live it; this is how I take comfort in justice.  Let me quickly add, I believe life is not about justice alone but must be harmonized with Love and humility. 


It seems to me you confuse justice with discipline. What is just for one's mind is not just for another's. Justice does not comfort people. Look at the example of this year where a man was sentenced to death for killing a woman's son but in the last moment the mother forgave him and asked for him to be brought down from hanging. That guy dying would not have brought that woman's son's back, though I pray that I would never get in her place. Revenge (retribution) does not comfort. What would have been the correct retaliation for that woman? Also how is justice comforting? And can you give examples of justice(correct retribution) in positive ways where justice is rewarding? How about in negative ones? What makes justice 'just'?

Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2014, 05:18:21 PM »

Quote
It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,

If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.

I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?

You're limiting God. Of course God can do what He wants. Of course there were a lot of other options, it is just that God chose this one, it doesn't mean it is the best or that the other possible options were less perfect or etc. It just means what it is, that this is what it was done. You will get nuts trying to find motifs for everything Smiley. God has never chose a definition upon himself that is limiting to himself or limited himself to a certain concept. The OT is the proof of primitive understanding of God, that uses a lot of anthropomorphism. God gets angry, God is just, God is love, etc.. Some say all this are anthropomorphism and not necessarily true or fitting, but human ways in trying to describe the indescribable. Orthodoxy uses apophatic language when speaking of God, that is it it can say what God is not , but not what God is. God is indescribable, mysterious, in comprehensive, etc.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 05:19:55 PM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2014, 05:42:13 PM »

Quote
μαθητης: It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,
If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.
I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?
TheTrisagion: No, if God declares Himself to be something He is that something. He cannot be opposed to His own nature. The wages of sin is death and there is no other way of salvation other than the death and resurrection of Christ. But it is not in the manner of "you sin, God pays you what you deserve". It is more like "you sin, the natural consequence is death".  If you stick your finger on the hot stove as a child, your parent did not come and burn you as a consequence, rather it was a natural consequence. Sin is death because it separates us from God. It is through the combined work of Christ and our repentance that that wound is healed and we are restored again and made alive.  The exact mechanism of that restoration is a mystery and it perhaps is unique for each individual, perhaps similar to how a child does not know how a burn heals, but he sees a scab form and eventually the skin is restored.
I hope the rest of the church shares your understanding on this matter.  And yes, I willingly accept the view point that the natural consequence of sin is death. Thank you. 

Thank you.  I understand death is a natural consequence of sin and I can follow the healing analogy.  I guess it will just take time for the idea that "whoever sins deserves death" to fade.  It is certainly not the only analogy, but it is still accurate in my opinion.

Quote
Dan-Romania You're limiting God. Of course God can do what He wants. Of course there were a lot of other options, it is just that God chose this one, it doesn't mean it is the best or that the other possible options were less perfect or etc. It just means what it is, that this is what it was done.
I’m interested to know how this statement is reconciled to TheTrisagion’s above. 

Dan-Romania, your correct that revenge does not comfort.  But justice is more than revenge/retribution.  It is also freedom and peace to those who obey.  I can live comforted by the fact that the police are enforcing justice and that I live in a just society (well better than most parts of the world anyway).

Thank you everyone for your patience
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2014, 05:54:07 PM »

Quote
μαθητης: It seems “deny” is a poorly selected word. Please allow me to ask it this way,
If God says he is just, can he be unjust?  (not by human standards, but by his own revealed standards)
God has plainly declared, ‘the wages of sin is death’.  Can he then say, ‘the wages of sin is not death’? If you say, “he has declared it through our Lord Jesus,” I agree, but Jesus had to suffer and die for this to be said.  The wages of sin still equals death.
I am struggling with the teaching that it was possible there was another way of salvation besides the death of Jesus because of who God has declared himself to be.  (I use past tense “was” intentionally because I do not believe Orthodoxy teaches salvation through any means but Jesus.)  I can agree Jesus’ death and resurrection is fitting, but in my ignorance I do not yet understand how there can be another possibility given what God has revealed about himself and about sin.  Do I just call it a mystery and ignore the possible implications?
TheTrisagion: No, if God declares Himself to be something He is that something. He cannot be opposed to His own nature. The wages of sin is death and there is no other way of salvation other than the death and resurrection of Christ. But it is not in the manner of "you sin, God pays you what you deserve". It is more like "you sin, the natural consequence is death".  If you stick your finger on the hot stove as a child, your parent did not come and burn you as a consequence, rather it was a natural consequence. Sin is death because it separates us from God. It is through the combined work of Christ and our repentance that that wound is healed and we are restored again and made alive.  The exact mechanism of that restoration is a mystery and it perhaps is unique for each individual, perhaps similar to how a child does not know how a burn heals, but he sees a scab form and eventually the skin is restored.
I hope the rest of the church shares your understanding on this matter.  And yes, I willingly accept the view point that the natural consequence of sin is death. Thank you.  

Thank you.  I understand death is a natural consequence of sin and I can follow the healing analogy.  I guess it will just take time for the idea that "whoever sins deserves death" to fade.  It is certainly not the only analogy, but it is still accurate in my opinion.

Quote
Dan-Romania You're limiting God. Of course God can do what He wants. Of course there were a lot of other options, it is just that God chose this one, it doesn't mean it is the best or that the other possible options were less perfect or etc. It just means what it is, that this is what it was done.
I’m interested to know how this statement is reconciled to TheTrisagion’s above.  

Dan-Romania, your correct that revenge does not comfort.  But justice is more than revenge/retribution.  It is also freedom and peace to those who obey.  I can live comforted by the fact that the police are enforcing justice and that I live in a just society (well better than most parts of the world anyway).

Thank you everyone for your patience


You'll have to be more explicit with that one.

On short notice even [a certain] revenge can make one feel good. But on the long term, in the big picture... inside..

I disagree with TheTrisagion at least on that one.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 05:58:29 PM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2014, 06:23:12 PM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.

There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).

These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.

It would, however, be correct to say that you cannot limit God by saying something like, God cannot kill me because He loves me or God cannot save a person who has not accepted Him.  To make those type of statements, you are attempting to place restrictions on the authority of God.  God tells us what the consequences of sin are and warns us of the dangers of failing to avoid sin, but if God permits some path to salvation outside of what He has told us, He is not contradicting Himself, He is merely not revealing His entire plan to us which is His prerogative as God.

I'm afraid I disagree with Dan regarding the option that God chose.  I believe God's plan is the best possible one of all options for us.  I can't imagine a scenario where God would say "This is the best way to reconcile man to myself, but I'm going to pick the 2nd best option". Perhaps it could happen, but it wouldn't make any sense to me.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2014, 06:35:17 PM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.

There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).

These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.

God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.

Quote
I'm afraid I disagree with Dan regarding the option that God chose.  I believe God's plan is the best possible one of all options for us.  I can't imagine a scenario where God would say "This is the best way to reconcile man to myself, but I'm going to pick the 2nd best option". Perhaps it could happen, but it wouldn't make any sense to me.

There is no 2nd best with God. Everything he does is perfect, because He is perfect or something Smiley
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2014, 06:45:28 PM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.

There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).

These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.

God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.

You believe that God can sin?  Huh
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2014, 02:54:46 AM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.

There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).

These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.

God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.

You believe that God can sin?  Huh

Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killling everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".

It is NOT Orthodox Theology or Theolugumen that The Most Holy Trinity/ God can sin or does sin.Please refrain from teaching false doctrine.  
Thank you,
Thomas Convert Issues Forum Moderator.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 08:24:20 PM by Thomas » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2014, 03:02:15 AM »

Not to mention God break his own laws (of nature) by the resurrection, liberation from hades. and will break them again at the general resurrection when the collision of the realms will take place.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,156



« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2014, 08:42:51 AM »

How exactly do you define sin?  The Orthodox view is that sin is "missing the mark".  How does God "miss the mark"?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2014, 10:43:00 AM »

How exactly do you define sin?  The Orthodox view is that sin is "missing the mark".  How does God "miss the mark"?

Exactly, there is no definition of sin... but even Christ agonised in the Garden of Ghetsemani. The point is, that you cannot limit God by anything, not even by Himself(Absurd thinking) as God is not limiting in anything, the divine qualities are infinitesimal, and cannot be bound to anything. The Divine cannot be bound. At least this is my understanding, you are free to disagree or correct me. But this topic is not about me.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2014, 02:13:46 PM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.
There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).
These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.
God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.
You believe that God can sin?  Huh
Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killling everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".
Hello Dan-Romania, the paradox of the incarnation displays God being able to become man.  The essence of God remains the same.  (I may be confusing essence and energies again, so please feel free to correct me.) 
Secondly, I question your statement that sin is a human concept.  Can you please provide Scripture/Church Tradition that substantiates this comment. 
Third, you have equated killing with sin.  However, there is a distinction between murder and killing.  Murder is called sin, killing is not necessarily so.
Fourth, can you give an example of Jesus breaking the OT law? Remember to distinguish between the OT law and pharisee's law of 2nd Temple Judaism.

There is a serious consequence here.  God is either righteous, or he is unrighteous.  There is no middle ground.  If, as has been discussed in this thread, Love is the ultimate righteousness and God is unrighteous, how then can God be love?  If you say God is not love, then I worship a different God.

Fifth, please be patient with me.  Your comments appear to run contrary to all I have been taught and seen lived out by those I know who seek God.  I will try to remain teachable.
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2014, 03:27:46 PM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.
There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).
These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.
God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.
You believe that God can sin?  Huh
Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killling everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".
Hello Dan-Romania, the paradox of the incarnation displays God being able to become man.  The essence of God remains the same.  (I may be confusing essence and energies again, so please feel free to correct me.)  
Secondly, I question your statement that sin is a human concept.  Can you please provide Scripture/Church Tradition that substantiates this comment.  

As TheTrisagion said sin in Orthodoxy is "missing the mark". Sin it is mostly seen as a disease than a transgression of a certain strict law. Orthodoxy uses as little penal language as possible. Orthodoxy deals with the individual, with the actual problem of the sin which is veneric , infecting, harming and poisoning. As Paul says "everything is permissible" (1Cor 6:12).

What I meant is that sin in penal ways is more of a human construct from my POV. Legalism compels and inhibates the soul.

Quote
Third, you have equated killing with sin.  However, there is a distinction between murder and killing.  Murder is called sin, killing is not necessarily so.

potato - potatoe , relative morals already?

Quote
Fourth, can you give an example of Jesus breaking the OT law? Remember to distinguish between the OT law and pharisee's law of 2nd Temple Judaism.

Perhaps He didn't. But that is not the point. The point is God is limitless. A God that can be put into a box is no longer God, something like that (paraphrasing).
Quote
There is a serious consequence here.  God is either righteous, or he is unrighteous.  There is no middle ground.  If, as has been discussed in this thread, Love is the ultimate righteousness and God is unrighteous, how then can God be love?  If you say God is not love, then I worship a different God.

Fifth, please be patient with me.  Your comments appear to run contrary to all I have been taught and seen lived out by those I know who seek God.  I will try to remain teachable.


As I said God is beyond such concepts as "righteous/unrighteous".

I don't believe I am the best person to advice you or the most knowledgeable of what Orthodoxy is, so I might risk misrepresenting it, and if/when I do that I beg the others who see my post to correct me.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 03:28:17 PM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2014, 11:36:32 AM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.
There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).
These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.
God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.
You believe that God can sin?  Huh
Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killing everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".
Hello Dan-Romania, the paradox of the incarnation displays God being able to become man.  The essence of God remains the same.  (I may be confusing essence and energies again, so please feel free to correct me.) 
Secondly, I question your statement that sin is a human concept.  Can you please provide Scripture/Church Tradition that substantiates this comment. 

As TheTrisagion said sin in Orthodoxy is "missing the mark". Sin it is mostly seen as a disease than a transgression of a certain strict law. Orthodoxy uses as little penal language as possible. Orthodoxy deals with the individual, with the actual problem of the sin which is veneric , infecting, harming and poisoning. As Paul says "everything is permissible" (1Cor 6:12).

What I meant is that sin in penal ways is more of a human construct from my POV. Legalism compels and inhibates the soul.

Quote
Third, you have equated killing with sin.  However, there is a distinction between murder and killing.  Murder is called sin, killing is not necessarily so.

potato - potatoe , relative morals already?

Quote
Fourth, can you give an example of Jesus breaking the OT law? Remember to distinguish between the OT law and pharisee's law of 2nd Temple Judaism.

Perhaps He didn't. But that is not the point. The point is God is limitless. A God that can be put into a box is no longer God, something like that (paraphrasing).
Quote
There is a serious consequence here.  God is either righteous, or he is unrighteous.  There is no middle ground.  If, as has been discussed in this thread, Love is the ultimate righteousness and God is unrighteous, how then can God be love?  If you say God is not love, then I worship a different God.

Fifth, please be patient with me.  Your comments appear to run contrary to all I have been taught and seen lived out by those I know who seek God.  I will try to remain teachable.


As I said God is beyond such concepts as "righteous/unrighteous".

I don't believe I am the best person to advice you or the most knowledgeable of what Orthodoxy is, so I might risk misrepresenting it, and if/when I do that I beg the others who see my post to correct me.

I must say that I am wary of moral relativism.  I'll grant that a lot of issues are relative, but taken to its final conclusion it leads into disturbing places.

However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?

Righteousness, no longer being contrasted to sin, is solely a matter of Law and therefore has taken on a purely legalistic tone distinct from sin.  The Law is a teacher of life and death but is itself not equal to life and death.  Now law was created for humanity (for example, man was not created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man), as such it has become subject to the whims of humanity distinguishing itself further from the spiritual matters of life and death.  Because you see righteousness as a matter of law made for man and unconnected to the life and death nature of sin, you can say that God is beyond matters of righteousness and unrighteousness. 

At the same time, the Way of Life is the substance of what the law is supposed to teach(Gal 4:1-3): Love, the highest of virtues that encompasses all other virtues. 

From my protestant point of view, I equate righteousness with the "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" = love = life. 
On the other hand from your point of view, righteousness seems to be a dependent function of the law, a mere matter of the law.   As such it is separated from the matter of sin, of life and death.  The "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" (that is Love) however remains as the Orthodox way of life.

Have I miss-represented anything or totally confused the issue?

The limitlessness of God appears to be a philosophical issue - one exacerbated by different view points, terminology, and the mystery of God. 

Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2014, 05:23:17 AM »

Just on comment on the "limiting God" phrase.  IMHO, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand this concept.
There are many limitations (if you wish to call them that) to God. God cannot act against His nature (ie. sinning, cease to exist, etc). God cannot perform logical impossibilities (ie. make round squares, create a rock to big for Him to push up a hill, etc). God cannot be a contradiction to that which makes Him God. (ie. He cannot be a lesser being of an alternate or other universe, the Mormon concept of God).
These are not so much "limitations" as they are clarifications of who God is.
God can do all that. And one of the proofs in that direction is the paradox of the Incarnation.
You believe that God can sin?  Huh
Sin is a human concept. God killed people in the OT, is killing everybody he makes them rape, etc. Jesus "broke" the OT Law. So "yes".
Hello Dan-Romania, the paradox of the incarnation displays God being able to become man.  The essence of God remains the same.  (I may be confusing essence and energies again, so please feel free to correct me.)  
Secondly, I question your statement that sin is a human concept.  Can you please provide Scripture/Church Tradition that substantiates this comment.  

As TheTrisagion said sin in Orthodoxy is "missing the mark". Sin it is mostly seen as a disease than a transgression of a certain strict law. Orthodoxy uses as little penal language as possible. Orthodoxy deals with the individual, with the actual problem of the sin which is veneric , infecting, harming and poisoning. As Paul says "everything is permissible" (1Cor 6:12).

What I meant is that sin in penal ways is more of a human construct from my POV. Legalism compels and inhibates the soul.

Quote
Third, you have equated killing with sin.  However, there is a distinction between murder and killing.  Murder is called sin, killing is not necessarily so.

potato - potatoe , relative morals already?

Quote
Fourth, can you give an example of Jesus breaking the OT law? Remember to distinguish between the OT law and pharisee's law of 2nd Temple Judaism.

Perhaps He didn't. But that is not the point. The point is God is limitless. A God that can be put into a box is no longer God, something like that (paraphrasing).
Quote
There is a serious consequence here.  God is either righteous, or he is unrighteous.  There is no middle ground.  If, as has been discussed in this thread, Love is the ultimate righteousness and God is unrighteous, how then can God be love?  If you say God is not love, then I worship a different God.

Fifth, please be patient with me.  Your comments appear to run contrary to all I have been taught and seen lived out by those I know who seek God.  I will try to remain teachable.


As I said God is beyond such concepts as "righteous/unrighteous".

I don't believe I am the best person to advice you or the most knowledgeable of what Orthodoxy is, so I might risk misrepresenting it, and if/when I do that I beg the others who see my post to correct me.

I must say that I am wary of moral relativism.  I'll grant that a lot of issues are relative, but taken to its final conclusion it leads into disturbing places.

However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
You catch hard. Smiley

Quote
Righteousness, no longer being contrasted to sin, is solely a matter of Law and therefore has taken on a purely legalistic tone distinct from sin.  The Law is a teacher of life and death but is itself not equal to life and death.  Now law was created for humanity (for example, man was not created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man), as such it has become subject to the whims of humanity distinguishing itself further from the spiritual matters of life and death.  Because you see righteousness as a matter of law made for man and unconnected to the life and death nature of sin, you can say that God is beyond matters of righteousness and unrighteousness.  

At the same time, the Way of Life is the substance of what the law is supposed to teach(Gal 4:1-3): Love, the highest of virtues that encompasses all other virtues.  

From my protestant point of view, I equate righteousness with the "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" = love = life.  
On the other hand from your point of view, righteousness seems to be a dependent function of the law, a mere matter of the law.   As such it is separated from the matter of sin, of life and death.  The "substance of what the law is supposed to teach" (that is Love) however remains as the Orthodox way of life.

Have I miss-represented anything or totally confused the issue?

How can righteousness be a dependent function of the law if (as sin) it is a matter of Life, not of law? Smiley I previously said in page 1 that righteousness is a state of the soul. This righteousness is not a penal imputation. Righteousness is not about imputation but about being.

Quote
The limitlessness of God appears to be a philosophical issue - one exacerbated by different view points, terminology, and the mystery of God.  



My friend this is spiritual meat. I already sense that you are not liking and it is displeasing to you. I used to be the same. Smiley I never believed I could find Orthodoxy appealing and recognise it as truth by my life, to me this were more like theories, empty words, trying to show off as different, etc. My opinion is that Orthodox depths are not for everyone at any time. Better talk to a priest and take it slowly. Step by step. Orthodoxy is too complex and what I have to offer you it might shock your entire spiritual life. As you said it is contrary to everything you are used to and believed Smiley. Nevertheless for the sake of discussion I am willing to continue.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 05:24:10 AM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2014, 08:00:48 PM »

Quote
analogizing sin as a crime or transgression is merely one way of explaining it.
Ah, there's a difference in analogies which have evolved into different ontological realities for the respective parties.  You are calling "sin a crime (aka breaking God's law)" a mere analogy.  My protestant teachers taught this as a reality through giving examples of this in Holy Scripture (from the protestant point of view of course).  In my limited exposure thus far, Orthodoxy also presents sin in ontological language as well, "sin is a disease"  instead of "sin is like a disease".  That explains some of my confusion.

By calling this an analogy, it weakens the definition and creates the opportunity to allow another analogy to fill in the gaps.  Unfortunately anyone can create an analogy, many analogies can co-exist, and all analogies are imperfect, though some are better than others.  For this reason I consciously avoid basing what I believe on the shifting sand of analogies.  But obviously I have been doing so unconsciously.

I understand where the analogy of "sin as a crime" comes from.  Can someone give a basis for the analogy of "sin as a disease"? 

I'm also curious to know: If sin is not disobedience...
1. how should I interpret the commands of God in Scripture? If as a simple command then assuming all commands come with an implied punishment, (just ask any parent what happens when a command is issued and disobedience not punished) we are back in the protestant paradigm again.
2. what do I call humanity's disobedience to those commands?
3. what term is used to describe God's action towards humanity's disobedience (say for example Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16)?

Thank you all who have posted, and I ask for your continued patience.  I am hoping that if I keep asking questions it will make sense one day.  This reminds me of the foggy confusion I had when learning about Greek participles; hopefully this will be just as temporary.

1. The (Old Testament) Law was given as a tutor, guidance, prescription to the theandrical Christ which is her end(pinnacle, purpose, what is suppose to extract and bring to). The purpose of the Law was(is) to educate and discipline man into the theandrical(Christ). Because men were derailing too much from the divine Law (which ≠ Old Testament Law or any other Law besides the Law of being, the Living Chris)t the Old Testament Law was given to bring us back. As the author of the Galatians says "the law was added because of transgression" , "the law is our tutor to Christ" and "if a law would have given so that it would impart life".

Everything in the Old Testament must be taken pedagogically, weather it literally happened or not because the Law is our guardian to Christ. The Jews refer to the entire body of the Old Testament as the "Law". You can also see Jesus referring to the Psalms as Law.

The purpose of the Law was to instruct people into virtues. To work upon the virtuos life. The Law was given against chaos and for discipline. It is not good in life to live without discipline.

2. I think one must see the Old Testament Law as disciplinary, through the eyes of civil governing(taking in considerence that Israel wanted to pass as a theocracy). Like any civil law that is today  and that is meant for discipline and keeping order. Again what I would stress upon is civil order and security perhaps at a primitive level. Without order and discipline there would be chaos.

3. "Judgement" ? Perhaps those were set as examples, to show God's judgement(as in discernment of righteousness, the divine law, pedagogy, obedience,etc ) favour and disfavour, likes and dislikes.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #57 on: May 19, 2014, 03:30:31 PM »

Hello Dan-Romania,
Quote
μαθητης: However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Dan-Romania: You catch hard.
Does that mean I am correct or that I missed it again?

Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #58 on: May 19, 2014, 03:39:04 PM »

Hello Dan-Romania,
Quote
μαθητης: However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Dan-Romania: You catch hard.
Does that mean I am correct or that I missed it again?



It looks OK to me.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2014, 03:59:35 PM »

Hello Dan-Romania,
Quote
μαθητης: However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Dan-Romania: You catch hard.
Does that mean I am correct or that I missed it again?


Dan-Romania:It looks OK to me.
Good, I at least got that part right.  The rest seems to have become a tangled mess.

What term(s) do you use to distinguish the way of life from the way of death?

« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 04:00:19 PM by μαθητης » Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #60 on: May 19, 2014, 04:08:14 PM »

Hello Dan-Romania,
Quote
μαθητης: However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Dan-Romania: You catch hard.
Does that mean I am correct or that I missed it again?


Dan-Romania:It looks OK to me.
Good, I at least got that part right.  The rest seems to have become a tangled mess.

What term(s) do you use to distinguish the way of life from the way of death?



righteousness? Smiley
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2014, 04:36:09 PM »

Hello Dan-Romania,
Quote
μαθητης: However, something has occurred to me.  My point of view has been that sin is contrasted against righteousness/justice/morality.  I then naturally draw the conclusion that if righteous is called a relative matter, then sin is called a relative matter.  But that does not appear to be the case here. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong... your point of view is that sin is contrasted with Life.  Sin is not a question of right and wrong but of life and death.  The ancient writing of the Didache teaches: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now, this is the way of life: 'First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself.' And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them... But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous..." (Didache in Early Church Fathers, ed. C. Richardson, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.  1:1-2; 5:1a. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html).

Is this distinction of point of views accurate?
Dan-Romania: You catch hard.
Does that mean I am correct or that I missed it again?


Dan-Romania:It looks OK to me.
μαθητης:Good, I at least got that part right.  The rest seems to have become a tangled mess.
What term(s) do you use to distinguish the way of life from the way of death?

Dan-Romania:righteousness? Smiley
Good enough for me. Smiley

Thank you Dan-Romania, TheTrisagion, and all the rest who have contributed!
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2014, 09:37:28 PM »

Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness because “the wages of sin is death”.  To reject or redefine to oblivion the idea that “the wages of sin is death” has great repercussions for interpreting scripture. 

The wages of sin is death because...?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #63 on: May 20, 2014, 09:50:46 AM »

Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness because “the wages of sin is death”.  To reject or redefine to oblivion the idea that “the wages of sin is death” has great repercussions for interpreting scripture.

The wages of sin is death because...?
Romans 6:23.  If you need more scripture references where this principle can be seen, let me know - but this passage states it most succinctly. 
For an actual reason you'll need to ask the Apostle Paul since he wrote it. 
Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #64 on: May 20, 2014, 10:01:58 AM »

Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness because “the wages of sin is death”.  To reject or redefine to oblivion the idea that “the wages of sin is death” has great repercussions for interpreting scripture.

The wages of sin is death because...?
Romans 6:23.  If you need more scripture references where this principle can be seen, let me know - but this passage states it most succinctly. 
For an actual reason you'll need to ask the Apostle Paul since he wrote it. 
Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?



It's often a risky business to take quotes out of context. If one reads the entire chapter, I think there is the idea that sin and death are inextricably linked. Both in the sense of one's own bad actions and also the human condition in a fallen world. Sort of the result of sin is death. However St. Paul spends a lot of time making parallels with life given by God.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2014, 11:20:12 AM »

Without the shedding of blood, it is just that there is no forgiveness because “the wages of sin is death”.  To reject or redefine to oblivion the idea that “the wages of sin is death” has great repercussions for interpreting scripture.

The wages of sin is death because...?
Romans 6:23.  If you need more scripture references where this principle can be seen, let me know - but this passage states it most succinctly. 
For an actual reason you'll need to ask the Apostle Paul since he wrote it. 
Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?


It's often a risky business to take quotes out of context. If one reads the entire chapter, I think there is the idea that sin and death are inextricably linked. Both in the sense of one's own bad actions and also the human condition in a fallen world. Sort of the result of sin is death. However St. Paul spends a lot of time making parallels with life given by God.

I agree context is important.  The language of death in Paul's discourse begins in chapter 5. You are correct IMHO that sin and death are inextricably linked (in both senses you mention).  And you are also correct IMHO that there is a parallelism St. Paul describes between sin and death and life given by God.  I believe you have correctly identified the context of Paul's statement.  How does it change anything?

I am confused by your statement, "Sort of the result of sin is death" 
I am confused as to why it is necessary to deny or water down the "cause and effect" concept of sin and death?  Is it because of the point of view that sin = death ontologically?  If so, I'm not sure how these view points contradict. In my opinion they are rather complimentary.
More importantly, where in either scripture or church Tradition is this concept that "the wages of sin is death" denied?

Please do not interpret this as argumentative, but as a student humbly asking questions in the search for understanding.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #66 on: May 20, 2014, 12:43:57 PM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #67 on: May 20, 2014, 12:56:37 PM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Its a question I've not really thought of. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,464


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 20, 2014, 12:59:20 PM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Its a question I've not really thought of. I'd be interested to hear what you think.


Me too.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 1,036


(N.B. Ebullient not educated)


« Reply #69 on: May 20, 2014, 01:12:21 PM »

I think it is necessary to redefine St. Paul as a man equipped with and obsessed by Protestant special vocabulary before his writing can be made to serve Protestant purposes; a circular process. In other words, that Western interpretations of him simply project on him, and that, in order to make this seem reasonable, they tacitly leave begging the important question of what Paul meant by his vocabulary. When he wrote "I belong to Flesh, sold as a slave to Error," or "The wages of Erring is Death," he was using common old Greek vocabulary in a vivid way, painting a picture of rare new truths, yes, but nothing the Church of his time could not understand and make use of by the Holy Spirit without any vast analytical theology required. Really was the world in darkness until Calvin et al.? The West's hyperspecialization is contemptuous of average human experience, which is really to say, destructive of the human soul. I guess all I am saying is how refreshing it is to find the East, Orthodoxy, instead to care realistically and holistically for the human soul.
Logged

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2014, 03:15:36 PM »

I think it is necessary to redefine St. Paul as a man equipped with and obsessed by Protestant special vocabulary before his writing can be made to serve Protestant purposes; a circular process. In other words, that Western interpretations of him simply project on him, and that, in order to make this seem reasonable, they tacitly leave begging the important question of what Paul meant by his vocabulary. When he wrote "I belong to Flesh, sold as a slave to Error," or "The wages of Erring is Death," he was using common old Greek vocabulary in a vivid way, painting a picture of rare new truths, yes, but nothing the Church of his time could not understand and make use of by the Holy Spirit without any vast analytical theology required. Really was the world in darkness until Calvin et al.? The West's hyperspecialization is contemptuous of average human experience, which is really to say, destructive of the human soul. I guess all I am saying is how refreshing it is to find the East, Orthodoxy, instead to care realistically and holistically for the human soul.

Oh, yes - that's what I meant to say!  Wink
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2014, 03:29:30 PM »

μαθητης--I am a bit confused with your insistent drilling down on this subject. Why are you doing so?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2014, 04:08:21 PM »

μαθητης--I am a bit confused with your insistent drilling down on this subject. Why are you doing so?
Though it took 61 posts, my question has been answered (for now anyway). But then NicholasMyra asked a question and KathrineofDixie made an interesting comment...
Part of the problem was asking the right question in the right way.  I believe this finally happened in reply #38 after which TheTrisagion and Dan-Romania offered their different opinions.  After that, I attempted to understand Dan-Romania's perspective, but as he aptly stated this is deep stuff and my journey is long.

The more I post, the more I am convinced of my own ignorance.
The more questions I ask, the more I learn.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 04:27:51 PM by μαθητης » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2014, 04:46:51 PM »


I am confused by your statement, "Sort of the result of sin is death" 
I am confused as to why it is necessary to deny or water down the "cause and effect" concept of sin and death?  Is it because of the point of view that sin = death ontologically?  If so, I'm not sure how these view points contradict. In my opinion they are rather complimentary.
More importantly, where in either scripture or church Tradition is this concept that "the wages of sin is death" denied?

Please do not interpret this as argumentative, but as a student humbly asking questions in the search for understanding.

I said "sort of" because first of all, I like to leave room for other folks' opinions and second, because I had not looked up the Greek text. Also it is not in the sense of "I do bad things and God punishes me with death," but in the sense of "sin and death entered the world together." That is, death is a "natural" consequence of sin.
An analogy might be useful (or not!), as was explained to me to get across the difference in understanding of sin, Protestant vs. Orthodox: think about if we lived in a place where our ancestors had clearcut forests and dumped dangerous chemicals in the water supply. (I know, crazy, right?). Although we may now be environmentally careful and are doing our best to clean up the mess, we still have to live with the consequences.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2014, 05:12:37 PM »


I am confused by your statement, "Sort of the result of sin is death" 
I am confused as to why it is necessary to deny or water down the "cause and effect" concept of sin and death?  Is it because of the point of view that sin = death ontologically?  If so, I'm not sure how these view points contradict. In my opinion they are rather complimentary.
More importantly, where in either scripture or church Tradition is this concept that "the wages of sin is death" denied?

Please do not interpret this as argumentative, but as a student humbly asking questions in the search for understanding.

I said "sort of" because first of all, I like to leave room for other folks' opinions
Fair enough

Quote
and second, because I had not looked up the Greek text. Also it is not in the sense of "I do bad things and God punishes me with death," but in the sense of "sin and death entered the world together." That is, death is a "natural" consequence of sin.
An analogy might be useful (or not!), as was explained to me to get across the difference in understanding of sin, Protestant vs. Orthodox: think about if we lived in a place where our ancestors had clearcut forests and dumped dangerous chemicals in the water supply. (I know, crazy, right?). Although we may now be environmentally careful and are doing our best to clean up the mess, we still have to live with the consequences.

I completely agree that death is a "natural" consequence of sin and I have no problem with your analogy.

I'm lost at why "the sense of 'I do bad things and God punishes me with death,'" is the wrong opinion.
Please also be careful with English translations.  "bad things" and "error" do not always equal αμαρτια (the Greek root translated "sin" in Rom 6:23.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 05:16:18 PM by μαθητης » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2014, 05:47:07 PM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Its a question I've not really thought of. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

To fulfill righteousness is to fulfill the God-appointed telos (purpose or end) for us. That purpose is to offer creation back to God in thanksgiving and glorification as divine high priests. Our wills must be aligned with God's in order to follow this God-appointed purpose; God's creative energies shine forth in us for this purpose.

Now, God did not merely create humans; God also conserves, or sustains, humans through time. For example: If God withdrew his creative energies from me, I would not be. Because God is merciful, he never allows us to cease to be because of our wickedness; nevertheless, when we turn from our God-appointed telos, we contravene the purpose for which the creative energies of God shine forth in us, the purpose for which we were created. This results in a break in free communion with God, and we are oriented away from God and toward death. This is why we experience deadly corruption. To sin is to defy the very divine creative energies which sustain us, and we are dragged down to death. That is how I understand "the wages of sin is death".
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 1,036


(N.B. Ebullient not educated)


« Reply #76 on: May 20, 2014, 06:27:59 PM »

Gosh, Nicholas, hearing things put in such a whole and harmonious fashion really heals my heart. I don't mean just your post but whenever I encounter the ancient religion well put.

Protestantism amounts to a kind of schizophrenia of religion, which, in its doctrines, becomes an obsessive fragmentation. At least in my case, this then produced an actual fragmentation of personality that became unbearable (its wages were death?). This thread brings the memory of all that rushing back.

Coming to yield to the ancient religion is proving to be the cure -- obedience and its freedom is the cure.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 06:29:04 PM by Porter ODoran » Logged

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #77 on: May 20, 2014, 07:07:31 PM »

Gosh, Nicholas, hearing things put in such a whole and harmonious fashion really heals my heart. I don't mean just your post but whenever I encounter the ancient religion well put.

Protestantism amounts to a kind of schizophrenia of religion, which, in its doctrines, becomes an obsessive fragmentation. At least in my case, this then produced an actual fragmentation of personality that became unbearable (its wages were death?). This thread brings the memory of all that rushing back.

Coming to yield to the ancient religion is proving to be the cure -- obedience and its freedom is the cure.

One of the paradoxes of Orthodoxy - obedience is freedom!
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
μαθητης
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 35


« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2014, 09:17:04 AM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Its a question I've not really thought of. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

To fulfill righteousness is to fulfill the God-appointed telos (purpose or end) for us. That purpose is to offer creation back to God in thanksgiving and glorification as divine high priests. Our wills must be aligned with God's in order to follow this God-appointed purpose; God's creative energies shine forth in us for this purpose.

Now, God did not merely create humans; God also conserves, or sustains, humans through time. For example: If God withdrew his creative energies from me, I would not be. Because God is merciful, he never allows us to cease to be because of our wickedness; nevertheless, when we turn from our God-appointed telos, we contravene the purpose for which the creative energies of God shine forth in us, the purpose for which we were created. This results in a break in free communion with God, and we are oriented away from God and toward death. This is why we experience deadly corruption. To sin is to defy the very divine creative energies which sustain us, and we are dragged down to death. That is how I understand "the wages of sin is death".
Thanks for sharing Nicholas

Well folks, its been fun.  My question has been answered so I will no longer be following this thread.  Thanks to all who have participated.
- μαθητης

Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2014, 09:23:47 AM »

Do you reject this statement that the wages of sin is death?
No, I don't.

I just think there's a reason why the wages of sin is death.
Its a question I've not really thought of. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

To fulfill righteousness is to fulfill the God-appointed telos (purpose or end) for us. That purpose is to offer creation back to God in thanksgiving and glorification as divine high priests. Our wills must be aligned with God's in order to follow this God-appointed purpose; God's creative energies shine forth in us for this purpose.

Now, God did not merely create humans; God also conserves, or sustains, humans through time. For example: If God withdrew his creative energies from me, I would not be. Because God is merciful, he never allows us to cease to be because of our wickedness; nevertheless, when we turn from our God-appointed telos, we contravene the purpose for which the creative energies of God shine forth in us, the purpose for which we were created. This results in a break in free communion with God, and we are oriented away from God and toward death. This is why we experience deadly corruption. To sin is to defy the very divine creative energies which sustain us, and we are dragged down to death. That is how I understand "the wages of sin is death".

+1

this notions have a different meaning in their original language and semantics; for example "sin = amatia"; that is why etymology is important to theology.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Tags: Rightousness of God  Justice of God Penal Substitution Ransom thoery Obligation of God 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.329 seconds with 106 queries.